Blog.

We get what others lobby for…

Look, I fully support efforts by Reddit and Wikipedia and others to raise awareness. But the reason SOPA and PIPA are threatening to destroy the Internet as we know it is due to the Internet sector’s epic failure to engage politically in a way that matters throughout, well, basically its entire history. Meaning, by aggressively lobbying. Sure, money is a terrible and horrible corrupting influence on politics. But here’s the thing: it exists.

Politics is defined by money and access. Plain and simple. The unfortunate truth is that if you want to change Washington DC, you have to buy it. And the big online Internet companies, especially Web-facing ones, have failed to pony up.

Interesting take by Mat Honan. I can’t say I disagree.

I think the main feeling I have walking away from today is shame.

Today was interesting. I don’t usually find myself caught up in the sorts of protest-type “movements” that we saw today, but this one got me. I’m still not sure how I feel about it. Whether Mat is 100% correct or not, I think the main feeling I have walking away from today is shame. Shame that it got to this point. As a country, how do we continue to put people in power who are so ready to listen to special interest groups? Is it simply because sometimes our special interests get listened to and we feel like we got a win?

The very existence of SOPA/PIPA (and the lobbying efforts that birthed them) underscore a deeper problem in our current political system. It’s deeper than money in politics, corporate lobbies, or congressmen who don’t understand the internet. I think we’re facing the result of making politics a lifelong-career of the privileged and attention-seeking. How different would Washington be if everyone knew they only had—at the most—a few years to do the work they were elected to do?

…and no, there’s no time machine.

All I can think is: we gave you the Internet. We gave you the Web. We gave you MP3 and MP4. We gave you e-commerce, micropayments, PayPal, Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, the iPad, the iPhone, the laptop, 3G, wifi—hell, you can even get online while you’re on an AIRPLANE. What the hell more do you want from us?

Take the truck, the boat, the helicopter, that we’ve sent you. Don’t wait for the time machine, because we’re never going to invent something that returns you to 1965 when copying was hard and you could treat the customer’s convenience with contempt.

Nat Torkington, in response to the president’s request of ideas and help from the tech community to stop and prevent piracy.

I don’t like piracy. I wouldn’t want my work stolen and I certainly don’t like seeing the work of friends stolen. But what the president is asking for doesn’t exist. I think future generations will look back on the invention of the Internet and—if it’s mentioned at all—see a footnote about how it made it hard for some industries to continue operating under their pre-Internet status quo. That is, unless we screw this up. Then the footnote will talk about the Internet Dark Ages where we allowed government and lobbyists to try to turn back the clock. I bet there was proposed legislation that required cars to artificially restrained to the speed of a horse too.

This video is three months old, and even the addendum at the end hasn’t quite kept up with these bills, but it’s still one of the best plain-language explanations I’ve seen on what the SOPA and PIPA acts are all about.

I know, I know, yesterday everyone on Twitter was celebrating the SOPA is dead (technically it has only been shelved and could come back up for vote at any time), but PIPA is still alive and furthermore, you owe it to yourself to understand these topics and be able to speak eloquently about them to your friends. Watch this video.

In the entire discussion, I’ve seen no discussion of credible evidence of this economic harm. There’s no question in my mind that piracy exists, that people around the world are enjoying creative content without paying for it, and even that some criminals are profiting by redistributing it. But is there actual economic harm?

Are people simply buying and consuming less traditional media?

Tim O’Reilly nails it. This is the entertainment industry’s most uncomfortable question:

Is the problem piracy, or are people simply buying less?

It’s anecdotal, but among my peers and myself, I know it to be true that we are buying less. Streaming media services, crappier movies, more expensive ticket prices, and significantly more entertainment alternatives might just mean that people are buying less:

While people have access to more traditional types of entertainment media they also have exponential access to alternatives.

Music: I buy a decent amount of music, but most of my friends simply use Pandora, Spotify or Rdio in place of purchasing or listening to terrestrial radio. Napster is a thing of the past and I don’t hear many peers talk about stealing music. So they’re either procuring it legally through services that are significantly cheaper than purchasing albums, or they’re putting their time and money elsewhere.

News: I don’t know anyone my age who subscribes to physical newspapers, and online, publishers like the New York Times have made it clear that they’re clueless when it comes to worthwhile online paid subscriptions.

Movies: I also don’t know anyone that buys DVDs anymore and Hollywood seems to be in a contest to see how much lower they can set the bar with each movie release while adding expensive gimmicks like 3D. Maybe I’m just bullshitting myself, but I feel like I’d see more movies if they were cheaper and I didn’t have to wear stupid glasses.

I’d suspect that the double-edged sword of the internet has meant that while people have access to more traditional types of entertainment media they also have exponential access to more alternative types of entertainment, games, news, writing, media, etc. that Hollywood can’t even find on its radar screen, let alone make money off of.

The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power. Well, CBP has no power over me. I am a law-abiding citizen, and, as such, I am the master, and the federal cops are my servants. They would do well to remember that.

I’m not exactly advocating Karl’s tactics, but I think he makes an interesting point: in general, law officials—both local and federal—have less power over us than we (and they) often think they do.